I agree with you, they're not generally a place to find any sense what so ever, Mark Vernon writes brilliantly about the court room debate about creationism and darwinism in the US, it was made into the film Inherit The Wind, and describes how before that science and religion had been considered to be harmonious but the debate set two equally incompatible alternatives against one another and the majority of the people in the US from that day have given careful consideration as to what hostile "camp" they belong to, a lot of the time deciding on the basis of which is most replusive to them, and not whether the dichotomy per se is a legitimate one.

So is the way of debates, they arent discussions and they quickly descend into disputes.

"Inherit the Wind" often obscured the nuances that were actually involved in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Bryan is portrayed as an irrational fundamentalist who opposed science in any form, yet that's not the case at all. He actually was willing to acknowledge evolution before man. And many of the early religious critics of evolutionary theory did so based on the science of the time. Also much criticism was directed against atheistic interpretations of evolutionary theory, not evolutionary theory per se.

I just finished watching the actual debate (not just the little exchange between an 11 year old and an idiot). Talk about reason vs. rhyme. Computer programmer vs. used car salesman. I think Bernie Dehler won that debate hands down. But it would not surprise that people thought Eric Hovind dominated that debate. The body-language, the voice projection, the hand gestures, the power point (which is usually bad form in these sorts of debates) were all appeals to get people watching on his side in an unthinking and unquestioning manner. Granted, I think Dehler could benefit his cause by learning some theater techniques, but that is all Hovind was doing--theatre.

At the end of the formal hour of debate, I have to say that Dehler had the patience of a monk. I was incredibly annoyed at the broken-record, irrelevant recounting of the lack of absolute knowledge of his oppenent, and striking a pose that Hovind did. The script was this: 1) opponent raises a logical point 2) Say "but do you know that for sure" 3) strike a pose (get audience response). At the end of that, I get the feeling the son (who did not have the patience of his father) wanted to get some licks in for revenge.

I am not an atheist, by the way. But requiring absolute knowledge from your opponent to even listen to him is the attitude of a moron--the worst form of moron.

Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

George Coyne just made my "to read" list. Excellent video. Thanks for this. Still watching.

Edit: Amazingly insightful point made at ~28:27

Essentially, that the intelligent design movement creates a God that is nothing like the God that most people believe in. (At least not George Coyne, nor me). I've been a designer. I like think that God is much more that this.

Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

You really don't. There are experts in philosophy, geology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. that are Christians, Islamic, Hindu, etc. Complete experts in their fields--the very STEM fields that try so hard to argue for Atheism--and they still maintain their faith. There is still not enough evidence to completely discount the religion itself, albeit many discount the WAY it is taught and the translations used.

STEM fields do not argue for atheism. Specific individuals do, some of whom work in STEM fields.

Originally Posted by kyuuei

I have to say though, for atheists to rely so heavily on science, they are WAY too certain that everything is not connected by something. At the end of the day, if an atheist does not believe that no proof is not a sign of non-existence, they are being just as blind as the Christians can be.

Atheists are not the only ones who rely on science. Moreover, scientists do recognize the interconnections among all things, we just often describe it in much different terms from those speaking from a religious perspective. Atheism is based just as much on belief as is any religion. Agnosticism is the only logically defensible perspective, but a perspective need not be 100% logically defensible to be worthwhile and useful.

Originally Posted by kyuuei

That boy said with 100% certainty that there is no proof of God. And he may be right. But I cannot say that without saying maybe. And no one else should be able to either. And still, no one can say that no proof of something does not discount its existence.

There is no proof of God, but as you say, that is not the same thing as proving there is no god. This is why atheism (the claim that there is no god) is just another belief.

Originally Posted by highlander

The thing is, it doesn't matter if you can or can't prove God exists. I believe God exists. If I'm right, I have everything to gain. If I'm wrong then I have little to lose. If you you don't believe God exists and if God does exist then you have everything to lose.

This is a well-known argument. Can you really make yourself believe in something based on a logical argument like this?

Originally Posted by kyuuei

I have stated my come back time, and time, again in here. My comeback is that the kid has all the of the SAME absolute certainty that the guy he is debating with has. There is no difference between the two on that. There is no comeback. The kid just cannot see that he is in the exact same position from the opposite view.

Their positions are in no way equivalent. The boy is pointing out a logical inconsistency in the man's statement. "Reasonable" answers would be to explain how it is not logically inconsistent and the boy is therefore in error; or to explain that faith statements do not require logical consistency. This man did not have the mental wherewithal to do either.

Originally Posted by kyuuei

Now-a-days, it is 'logical' for women to have the same rights as men, whether people see it or not. But this is NOT pure logic. It cannot be pure because it is based on subjectivity and changes with time and people's thoughts. We just use 'pure logic' as this idea to push other ideas towards. It cannot exist in and of itself because there is no absolutes when it comes to relativity.

Logic is a process. Provide different inputs to the process, and it will deliver a different outcome. This is not subjectivity, but rather using the facts relevant to the problem.

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

No. However, it makes having faith in something that can't be proven much more rational/logical. It should cause anyone with half a brain to take pause.

Would faith be enough to secure the positive benefits of "winning" the wager? I realize this gets into different religious interpretations of how people should live. I mention it because I have heard the argument presented in terms of acting as if God exists, meaning one needn't actually believe it. I do see merit in this, as many people are motivated to live a more virtuous life by the idea of God.

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Would faith be enough to secure the positive benefits of "winning" the wager? I realize this gets into different religious interpretations of how people should live. I mention it because I have heard the argument presented in terms of acting as if God exists, meaning one needn't actually believe it. I do see merit in this, as many people are motivated to live a more virtuous life by the idea of God.

Maybe it is ore nuanced than what I described. If you are a Christian, you are absolved of your sins through the sacrifice Jesus made for us. As you grow in faith, the expectation that God has for us increases. It's not just enough to believe in God but you have to do something about it and that doesn't mean doing good things. It has to do with having faith in God and listening to the direction he imparts on our lives. You do that through reading his word (i.e., reading the bible), seeking his guidance (prayer) and things like that. Other religions are different though. Christianity is differentiated by this concept of "grace" - you don't make your way into heaven by good deeds. You make your way into heaven through faith.